Las cenizas de Ángela

When Frank McCourt's autobiography "Angela's Ashes" was published, we were all quite impressed with it, specifically how McCourt was able to write about each stage of his life as though he was still the age portrayed. Obviously, the movie wasn't able to do this. But otherwise, the movie was a worthy effort, showing the poverty in Limerick and how the father (Robert Carlyle) spent his earned money on alcohol, and the mother (Emily Watson) felt like she couldn't do anything about it. An interesting device that the movie does use is that the soundtrack is mostly American jazz (which Frank probably heard a lot on the radio) rather than Irish jigs.

So, the book is better - especially how he indicts the Catholic Church for keeping his family in poverty - but the movie is passable. Alan Parker has maintained a pretty good track record.

Alan Parker has made many films which adapt material from other media. I have been less than thrilled with most of these, but I've enjoyed one or two. Angela's Ashes is one of his better works, but it adapts a book which< I would argue, can not be properly adapted.

This is a very pure, almost sterile, adaptation of the original memoir "Angela's Ashes" by Frank McCourt. It chronicles vignettes in the family history of the McCourt's, a poor Irish Catholic family struggling to survive in early 20th century Ireland. The film, like the book, is stark, painful, hopeful, powerful, and deftly accurate. More than a period piece, this film works as a dramatic rendering of social history.

Unlike the book, this film depicts Frank's childhood from a disembodied third person perspective, though it is liberally complemented by an effective voice-over narrative drawn almost directly from McCourt's own prose. Frank is the oldest of several siblings (many of whom never reach adulthood), in a family suffering from poverty, alcoholism, and persecution. Although the film has many positive messages, like the lives of the McCourt's, it's not an easy road. Those who wish to be simply entertained should probably not bother.

The performances are all exquisite. Kudos to the cast and the director for making them all look so great. Visually, the film is stunning for its starkness and powerful use of contrast. The pace is a little breathless at times, but, given the richness of the original work, this is appropriate.

All considered, this is a very worthy representation of the book. The only quibble I have stems from the very act of translating what was a very intensely personal, first-person memoir into a third-person medium like film, not from anything the production team did, or from the script and cast. It would likely have been impossible in a mainstream film to depict the texture and poetics of McCourt's prose to the extent that viewers would really feel that they had grown up with him and knew him like a member of their own family. This is how the book made me feel, and seeing the movie after the book I was reminded of the feeling, but not quite so powerfully affected. I would agree that reading the book first will help you enjoy this film, however, I also believe that this stands well on its own.

The trouble with making a movie out of a Pulitzer Prize winning book is that no matter how good and true to the book it is, it will usually be a disappointment. This has a lot to do with the difference between reading a story and seeing one. When one reads a book, it is usually done over time, perhaps a week or two. The words stir the imagination and the scenes described become images, usually more illusory than real. There is plenty of time for this process to work. A film, in contrast, is viewed over a period of about two hours, where the viewer is perceiving rather than imagining. The portrayals are well defined and no matter how creative the director, it is very difficult to create scenes that equal those of readers who have previously conjured fantastic images in their heads.

I believe this is the reason this film was such a disappointment to so many viewers who had read the book. Thankfully, I saw the film first, so I had no preconceived notions. With that fresh perspective, I must say that it was outstanding.

It the story is taken from the memoirs of Frank McCourt, who recounted his childhood in Ireland in the 1930's and 1940's. It is a poignant and compelling story of a poor family struggling to survive. The images are powerful depictions of the indignity of indigence in a world where hunger and disease were common and people went almost as frequently to the cemetery as to the market.

Alan Parker brings us a starkly realistic view of McCourt's Ireland. He scoured Ireland to find a ghetto that brought forth the images described in the book, but after an exhaustive search, he decided to build the lane from scratch using McCourt's photographs. Upon visiting the set, McCourt said it was chillingly accurate and he couldn't believe he wasn't back home. Parker desaturated the color to give the film a very stark look, consistent with the squalor he was trying to portray. Paradoxically, the loss of color intensity intensified the power of the images. Though I'm not a big fan of this technique (I like rich and vibrant color), in this case it was the perfect choice.

The film suffers a bit from excessive length, undoubtedly because there was so much to cover. However, when Parker bombards the viewer with disturbingly hopeless imagery for well over two hours, it becomes tedious. This is another advantage of reading a book. You can more easily put it down and come back to it. Parker sometimes overdoes certain ideas that he could have condensed. We could have done without half a dozen vomiting scenes and all the chamber pot activity. One or two such scenes would have gotten the message across.

The cast was consistently excellent. Parker saw over 15,000 child actors before casting the three boys who played Frank at various ages. All three were wonderful, but my favorite was Michael Legge, the oldest Frank. He was the most hopeful person in the film, giving him character and determination, without losing his idealistic innocence.

Emily Watson is a great dramatic actress and rose to the occasion to endow Angela with superhuman strength, courage and persistence in the face of crushing hardship and sorrow. Robert Carlyle was also terrific as Frank's father. He made the character a lovable man with fatal flaws. Despite his heinously irresponsible behavior squandering money on drink as his family starved, his charming nature and effusive affection for the children evoked as much love from us as disgust.

This is a brilliant production. Though many who read the book were disappointed, I must point out that Frank McCourt, who wrote the book, was unabashed in praising it for its realism in capturing his impressions and feelings of the times. I rated it a 9/10. Other than a bit of overkill, this is superb filmmaking giving us an affecting look at the human face of poverty.

I've read both Angela's Ashes, and 'Tis (the sequal also by McCourt), and I think that really helped get a good perspective of what's going on. A lot happens that we aren't shown in the movie, which makes sense considering a word for word rendition of the text would be far too long.

But reading the book provides you with a little more background- more insight as to WHY the family is in the situation it is (the mother was "knocked up" and the two were forced into marriage and family life that probably NEITHER were ready for), and especially the impact of the death of the little baby girl had- most notable in the father.

All in all, it was a great film... seriously. It's the memories a poor Irish childhood- but the best part is that much of it is told through the eyes of a 'child' (even if its in retrospect). The reason that it is unique, I think, is that if the viewer is open enough, they can get beneath the obvious misery that we're pelted with and really see the innocence of a child through out the story.

I get really irritated with those that brush it off as "been there, done that", or "Woe is me, I was a poor Irish child." I think that shows ignorance and disgusting apathy- go watch a movie where stuff explodes to keep your feeble mind occupied, because you obviously are too shallow to understand what you're seeing. Imagine yourself as that child- in a nation full of families stuck in the same rut. This isn't some Hollywood drama concocted... this is(was) someone's LIFE. And the movie sticks very much to the book- I remembered many of the exact lines word for word from the text. Also... a few people have complained about the 'incomplete' ending. That's pretty much exactly where the book ends- read (horror of HORRORS!) the sequal, 'Tis, to find out the rest.

Either way- very touching film. Definitely dark and deep, and I recommend it to anyone who has an open mind.

Being married to a man from Ireland, I can really relate to this movie. I went to see his family home in 1978 and he grew up in very similar circumstances. The movie portrays the depression and drinking problems the Irish have. Emily Watson is great as his mother- she has to swallow her pride and beg so her kids can have food and clothes. The Vincent De Paul society is a great presence in Ireland. The way the kids are beat in school is right on- my husband tells me horror stories of how the priests and nuns treated him. Like Frankie he was able to get out of the country when he was 19-- This movie captures both the good and the bad of McCourt's book. I showed it to my son so now he understands his father a lot better. As a whole the movie deserves a lot of credit for staying true to McCourt's words. Robert Carlyle is good as Frankie's father. Everyone in the movie-- fits one type of Irish personality. We still keep candles burning in front of the statue of Mary at home. I will watch this move again so I can pick up on some of the other aspects

of Irish life.